- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103406 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BASAVANTHAPPA @ BASAVARAJ S/O HANAMANTHAPPA KODAGANTI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KHADI NAGAR, NARASAPUR, TQ. GADAG-582 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARANAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERBHADRAYYA S/O AYYAPPAYYA HOMBAL, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. KHADI NAGAR, NARASAPUR, TQ. GADAG, PIN-582 101. 2. CHANDRAKANAT S/O VEERABHADRAYYA PAWADSHETTY, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. KHADI NAGAR, NARASAPUR, TQ. GADAG, PIN-582 101. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 3. MALLAPPA B. GAUROJI, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED HESCOM EMPLOYEE, R/O. HUDCO COLONY, TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG, PIN-582 101. 4. NINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA DESAI, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. PDO, R/O. OFFICE GRAM PANCHAYAT, HATALGERI, DIST. GADAG, PIN-582 101. 5. CHANDRASHEKHAR BAGALKOT, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HESCOM EMPLOYEE, R/O. OFFICE OF HESOCM VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, OLD D.C. OFFICE, GADAG, DIST. GADAG, PIN-582 101. … RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED BOTH ORDER DATED 19.08.2024, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.12/2021, PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT GADAG AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 IN PCR NO.04/2020 (NOW CC NO.1101/2021) ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT, GADAG, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 466, 471, 474, 167, 418 R/W 34 OF IPC AND BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in PCR No.4 of 2020, by the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC II Court, Gadag, which is confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2021, by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag by order dated 19.01.2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate against 8 persons alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Section 465, 466, 471, 474, 166, 166A, 167, 409, 418 r/w 149 of IPC. After recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and marking the documents which were produced in support of his case, the trial Court had heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2021, had taken cognizance of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 471, 474, 167, 418 r/w 34 of IPC, only as against accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2021 which was rejected on 19.08.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the ground urged in the petition submits that the documents which were produced and marked before the trial Court Exs.P1 to P26 makes out a clear case as against all the accused persons named in the private complaint. However, the said documents were not appreciated by the learned trial Judge and he has erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences only as against accused nos.1, 4 and 5. Even the Revisional Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded before the trial Court on 09.12.2020 and 05.01.2021. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 petitioner who was examined before the trial Court as PW1, in support of his case had got marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26. The learned trial Judge having referred to the sworn statement of the petitioner and also documents marked as Exs.P1 to P26 in support of the case of the petitioner, in paragraph Nos.9 to 13 of his order, has observed as follows: 9. From a wholesome reading of the complaint averments, the sworn statement and the documents produced by the complainant it can be deduced that the complainant's case in essence is that the accused in collusion with each other with the common object of causing wrongful loss to the complainant concocted/created the resolutions at Ex.P4 and Ex.P12 through which the DOT License issued in favour of the complainant to run the power loom were cancelled / revoked and thereafter made wrongful communications on the basis of the aforementioned resolutions resulting in unlawful disruption of power supply to the business unit of the complainant and monetary, physical and emotional loss to the complainant. The complainant thus alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/ss. 465, 466, 471, 474, 166, 166A, 167, 409, 418 R/w Section 149 of IPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 10. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Ex.P8 which forms the fulcrum of the case of the complainant. According to Ex.P8 which is the endorsement dated 30.08.2016 issued by the PDO of Hatalageri Grama Panchyath to the complainant, there was no meeting of any kind on 23.04.2016. Under such circumstances, the alleged resolution dated 23.04.2016 at Ex.P4 is palpably created. In that view of the matter, the letters at Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 written by accused No.1, 4 and 5 respectively to the accused No.6 requesting disruption of power supply to the complainant on the basis of the revocation of DOT License issued in favour of the complainant vide resolution dated 23.04.2016 at Ex.P4 which appears to be concocted are prima facie sufficient to attract the offences punishable U/ss. 465, 466, 471, 474, 167 and 418 R/w Section 34 of IPC in so far as accused No.1, 4 and 5 are concerned. Further, though accused No.4 and 5 are Public Servants, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Omkr. Dhankar V/s State of Haryana, reported in 2012 SAR (Criminal) 267 wherein it is observed that the offence of cheating U/s 420 or offences relatable to sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B cannot be regarded as having been committed by the public servants / accused while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty so as to require sanction of the competent authority as contemplated U/s 197 of Cr.P.C, this court is of the opinion that the alleged acts committed by accused no.4 and 5 herein cannot be termed as acts purported to have been done in discharge of official duty and therefore the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 bar under section 197 of Cr.P.C will not come in the way of proceeding against accused no.4 and 5. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against accused No.1, 4 and 5 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 465, 466, 471, 474, 167 and 418 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 11. It is relevant to note that the complainant alleges that accused No.2 and 3 instigated accused No.1 to write a letter to accused No.6 as per Ex.P2 and the accused No.2 and 3 also wrote a letter dated 30.12.2016 as per Ex.P15 complaining of non disruption of electric supply to the complainant despite the resolution of Ex.P12 revoking the license issued in favour of the complainant. The above allegations in the humble opinion of this Court cannot constitute the alleged offences punishable U/ss. 465, 466, 471, 474, 166, 166A, 167, 409, 418 R/W Section 149 of IPC as against accused No.2 and 3. In other words the allegations made against accused No.2 and 3 do not constitute any of the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no sufficient materials against the aforementioned accused to constitute the alleged offences. 12. The complainant further alleges that the accused No.6 colluded without conducting any inquiry and merely on the basis of concocted documents submitted by accused No.1 to 5, all of a sudden disrupted electricity - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 supply to the business unit of the complainant causing under hardship and loss to the complainant. In so far as accused No.7 is concerned, the complainant alleges that he along with accused No.4 created the resolution at Ex.P12. The complainant has placed reliance upon Ex.P17 to contend that Ex.P12 is concocted. However, a careful perusal of Ex.P17 discloses that the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Gadag in his order dated 10.03.2017 has merely observed that the resolution at Ex.P12 is invalid on the ground of having been passed ex-parte during the pendency of the suit in OS No277/2016. Under such circumstances, the resolution at Ex.P12 by no stretch of imagination can be held to be concocted or created. Hence the allegations of forgery and other allied offences as mentioned above cannot be attributed to accused No.7. The complainant also averred that accused No.8 after gaining wrongfully from accused No.1, all of a sudden distrusted power supply to the business unit of the complainant against the established principles of natural justice causing wrongful loss to the complainant. The above allegations in so far as accused No.8 is concerned also do not constitute the necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offences punishable U/ss. 465, 466, 471, 474, 166, 166A, 167, 409, 418 R/w Section 149 of IPC and hence accused No.8 cannot be held liable for the commission of the aforementioned offences. 13. In view of the discussion made supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are sufficient - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 materials to proceed only against accused No.1, 4 and 5 in respect of the alleged offences punishable U/ss. 465, 466, 471, 474, 167, 418 R/W Section 34 of IPC are concerned. In so far as the other accused are concerned, it appears that there are no sufficient materials against the said accused to proceed against them for commission of the offences alleged as they were merely making communication on the basis of Ex.P12 which cannot be brought within the purview of a forged or created document or acting under the colour of their respective offices. Also, this Court is of the opinion that the acts committed by accused No.1, 4 and 5 do not fall within the purview of the offences punishable U/s 166, 166A and 409 of IPC.” 6. From a reading of the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid paragraphs, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the oral and documentary evidence placed before him and has rightly taken cognizance of alleged offences only as against accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. The said order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed by the Revisional Court by a reasoned order. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12321 CRL.P No. 103406 of 2024 Pending applications, if any stand disposed off. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VMB CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37